Skip to Content

New here with a game idea!

36 replies [Last post]
Noblesm19
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2018

Hey Everyone,

My name is Mike and I'm happy to be here. I could go in to a lot of detail of how my love for games started when I was just a wee lad, but, I'll spare everyone.

I've noticed that there's a wealth of material on getting started on my own board game, and plan on reading as much as I can; but, I figured it might be easier to just start here!

My Wife and I thought of a party-style card game so we ran out to get index cards and other necessary materials and created 1 game, with three separate stacks of 121 cards, which are needed to play. After furiously writing each card, we decided to test the game between ourselves (me, my son and my wife). We liked the idea of the game and improved upon it. We then brought it to some friends and tried it, they too had feedback which we rolled in to the game. We plan on play testing more, but as we're awaiting additional feedback, we're thinking that we could really turn this in to a game that other families would play.

So, I'm looking to you, the community for some guidance on our next steps!

What we have:
363 cards used to play the game

What we're thinking of adding:
small tokens used for winning that round

What we need:
we're lacking art on the front and the back of the cards, but we plan on getting something rough together to see how it looks

Any input is good input, thank you!

Mensian
Mensian's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/14/2018
363?

Noblesm19 wrote:

What we have:
363 cards used to play the game

Are all 363 cards used at the same tame or some are left in the box like in Dominion?
If you use all of them, then your first task sould be to cut off the number of cards to 100 or less.
Reasons:
It will cost you a fortune to get professional art on 363 cards. It is very hard to test with 363 cards. (Personally, I would never print 363 cards of an unknown game to test it.) If you make an on-line prototype of your game for testing, that's questionable, because you want a party game, and parties are not an on-line experience. Finally, how can you balance 363 cards? That is definitely not a task for beginner designers.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Hello & Feedback

Hello Mike, and welcome to BGDF. :)

Regarding your game idea: at first blush, yeah it sounds like a lot of cards. And it seems like the game ballooned from your initial idea into something nearly three times the size of the original.

But a game isn't just the components. What other details can you share about your game? What do players do with those cards? Are all of them used in a single session? Do you need a large quantity of content so your game stays fresh from one game session to the next (like Trivial Pursuit or Cards Against Humanity? Are there instead multiples of a smaller subset of cards, like the above-mentioned Dominion?

There are lots of reasons to have so many cards, and not all of them are bad. :)

Regarding artwork, I don't recommend spending much money on it yet, while it's still early in the design process. However, there are a number of places to pick up no-cost artwork to start adding visuals to your game. Maybe Game Icons or the Noun Project can help you:

game-icons.net

thenounproject.com

Hope this info is useful. :)

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
more art links
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Yeah, if it's an Apples to

Yeah, if it's an Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity style game, I'd assume it doesn't matter how many cards there are. Since you were very specific about 121 cards x3, I'm guessing it's not that. Since 121 is 11x11, I'm curious if there's a cross-product of stuff in there somewhere..

Anyway, let us know some details!

(hint: Nobody will steal your idea. We all have more ideas than we know what to do with already!)

As for the tokens, if you don't need the tokens (e.g. a pencil and paper do just as well), I'd suggest not adding the tokens. Then you could ship this in a card box (a large card box) and not worry about figuring out where to put the tokens, having the players worry about losing the tokens, having to put a "kids under 3 may try to eat this game!" warning, etc.

Noblesm19
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2018
Re:

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Regarding the art -- We planned on making it ourselves and digitizing them when we're happy with what we come up with, but, I'm not opposed to getting some professional help.

Regarding the card count -- 363 seems like a weird number, yeah, but it's possible that they can all be used in one game session. I'll explain why below

Game Idea --

The premise of the game is use the idea of the show 'Chopped' (obviously not called Chopped) and turn it in to a party game. An entire round consists of three courses that you serve to the one judge. There will be an appetizer round, entree round and desert round.There are three decks, Adjectives, Ingredients and Dishes. Before the round begins, you draw 3 adjectives, 3 ingredients and 3 dishes. At this time, the best cook at the table becomes the judge for the entire round. The other players will begin to compose their dish for the appetizer round by taking 1 adjective, 1 ingredient and 1 dish and laying it out in front of them, face down. Once all players lay their cards down they then present their dish to the judge.

For example, player one would say : "I made for you a (adjective/ingredient) + (adjective/ingredient) + (dish)".

After all players present their appetizer, the judge decides which one they like the best and awards the winning player a VP or any other type of point...or even keeps all the cards to signify they're doing good.

Play continues the same way in to the entree and desert round. Once all dishes have been served, the player to the right of the judge, becomes the judge and the game starts over again.

There are serious and wacky cards in the 3 decks and sometimes you'll wind up with funny/nasty/real dishes that you'll be serving. Much like in cards against humanity, you'll want to play your dishes to the judge.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
My only concern is this...

What happens if a Judge is "biased"??? And will always vote for one Player over the other?? This could happen...

My suggestion is that you should "encourage" players to make the "most reasonable" scoring "course". What do I mean by this? Well because you have more cards than necessary, the idea would be to get the HIGHEST score based on what dish you prepare. But at the same time, you don't want to use all of your "highest" because the goal is to preserve some of the higher scoring cards for future rounds of play.

To further explain, I think you should incorporate a "Scoring System". It can be really simple like just adding (+x) cards... Or "roll 4d6s" to get a score, the closest player to it is the winner. If there is a tie, the player with the least amount of cards used is the winner.

Anyhow something like that to have "clear rules" to who is the winner each and every round.

Cheers!

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Noblesm19 wrote:Thanks for

Noblesm19 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Regarding the art -- We planned on making it ourselves and digitizing them when we're happy with what we come up with, but, I'm not opposed to getting some professional help.


Likely harder than you think, if you're planning to sell this.

Quote:
Regarding the card count -- 363 seems like a weird number, yeah, but it's possible that they can all be used in one game session. I'll explain why below

Still seems like a weird number. And this IS basically an "Apples to Apples" game, except.. without structure (see below)

Quote:
For example, player one would say : "I made for you a (adjective/ingredient) + (adjective/ingredient) + (dish)".

So, Apples to Apples has something you're trying to MATCH. So does Cards Against Humanity. You're lacking that, so what makes one dish better than another to the judge? Given that this isn't anonymous, the answer will end up being "nepotism". How am I NOT selecting my wife's entry? Is the "juicy unicorn burger" really worse than the "raw horseshoe balls"?

Quote:
Play continues the same way in to the entree and desert round.

Am I redrawing?

Quote:
Once all dishes have been served, the player to the right of the judge, becomes the judge and the game starts over again.

So basically if you're playing with 6 people, you need to do 18 of these rounds for everyone to have an equal turn. That's a lot.

Quote:
Much like in cards against humanity, you'll want to play your dishes to the judge.

Like Apples To Apples, CAH is anonymous, no?

The two biggest issues I see are lack of anonymity and lack of target. "Chopped" HAS a target, actually. The chefs need to use certain ingredients. So you've taken the 3-round format from the show, but nothing else.. I wouldn't worry about getting accused of stealing from it.

But anyway, "judge" games are tricky, which is why I can only think of two main successful ones. The judging needs to be fair, and the judging needs to have a point beyond "haha, that's my favorite adjective" or "I hate peanut butter, so no."

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
And another matter

You should be able to design the game with 100 cards + duplicates. What I mean is LESS than 100 original pieces of artwork, because of some of them are repetitive.

3 types x 33 cards/per type = 99 cards. That could be more reasonable.

OR if you want MORE "cards" then think about having an "expansion" down-the-line...? You could do "themed" expansions like "Sports" or "Italian", etc.

I'm pretty certain you can get the game down to LESS than 100 cards! Mensian was right, 100 cards should be the topmost quantity especially when it's your first game and you are relatively unknown as a designer.

All this has to do with PRICING too. The more cards, the higher the cost to make artwork and production prices also go up too.

Best of luck(?!) with your game...

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
questccg wrote:I'm pretty

questccg wrote:
I'm pretty certain you can get the game down to LESS than 100 cards! Mensian was right, 100 cards should be the topmost quantity especially when it's your first game and you are relatively unknown as a designer

Well, I think I disagree with this. A2A & CAH both had a lot of cards. This sort of game NEEDS a lot of cards because otherwise there's no replayability.

Of course, neither of those games has any art on the faces of the cards.

Hint hint.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
As a Master Chef addict, I

As a Master Chef addict, I really like this idea. Could this be the kind of game where - instead of having lots of pre-made cards - the players write down adjectives on slips of paper. Mix them up and...you never know what combinations you can get.

This might take away the commercial potential of the game, but...you might have created a game to be played in family gatherings and ESL classrooms across the world... :)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
UNO has 108 cards... And is it REPLAYABLE???

Jay103 wrote:
...This sort of game NEEDS a lot of cards because otherwise there's no replayability...

It doesn't NEED "a lot of cards". It also doesn't need big variability to make the game "replayable". What IT NEEDS is to be FUN! And if this is oriented to a "younger" audience of gamers, well then I think it needs to be rather SILLY and funny when players show their combinations.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts, if you require rolling 4d6s and trying to come "closest" to that amount in order to win the round... This way you can have both PLUS "+" and MINUS "-" to try to mess with your own score to attain the dice roll total...

Again look at UNO. It has 108, 25 of each color + 8 Wild & Penalty cards.

And people don't get tired of playing UNO "over and over and over and over..." you get my drift. The thing is that the game must be FUN. And that can mean different things.

A> FUN could mean hilarious combos which make people laugh.

B> FUN as in there is a lot of depth of strategy putting together the various "courses".

C> etc.

What I mean to say is that the FUN-Factor for the game can be from various sources (and not only one...)

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
FAKE

Tim Edwards wrote:
As a Master Chef addict, I really like this idea...

You do realize that all Reality Television is "scripted", right??? In other words it's FAKE television just like sit-coms and the like... Master Chef is no different. Have you seen the kids version of the show??? Do you mean to tell me all those kids cook better than the majority of "housewives" around the world???

Think about it... It's FAKE, scripted. A form of entertainment where some of the important parts of "storytelling" are used to form an episode...

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
questccg wrote:Jay103

questccg wrote:
Jay103 wrote:
...This sort of game NEEDS a lot of cards because otherwise there's no replayability...

Again look at UNO. It has 108, 25 of each color + 8 Wild & Penalty cards.


...

This isn't Uno, it's Apples to Apples. Uno is a totally different type of game.

I mean, Hearts also gets by with only 52 cards, but that doesn't mean that all card games can. If you were going to sell this in a store, you'd need variety.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
questccg wrote:Tim Edwards

questccg wrote:
Tim Edwards wrote:
As a Master Chef addict, I really like this idea...

You do realize that all Reality Television is "scripted", right??? In other words it's FAKE television just like sit-coms and the like... Master Chef is no different. Have you seen the kids version of the show??? Do you mean to tell me all those kids cook better than the majority of "housewives" around the world???

Think about it... It's FAKE, scripted. A form of entertainment where some of the important parts of "storytelling" are used to form an episode...


This is a digression, but.. of course they're not all fake. They're game shows with prizes. Are they exactly as presented? No. They re-shoot some things, etc. But they're not scripted.

This is a different category than Real Housewives and all that, but those aren't all fake either. Or at least, they're non-scripted. I'm sure the drama is 90% done-on-purpose-to-get-more-airtime.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Trust me...

If you ever find upon the shows that "heard about what was going to be REALITY TELEVISION" ... and see that they are basically filming people living their normal daily lives.

Of course this was and has never been what REAL "Reality Television" was about. It was just people thinking they understood what was to come.

And they were NATURALLY "wrong"!

Because all Reality Television shows are scripted. Even Survivor which puts people on islands in the Fiji... Is mostly scripted. Not all because there are challenges and usually all contestants want to win... BUT the overall story-arc is scripted... Producers know who is going to win the game.

Same like Big Brother... All the drama, voting, teaming-up it's all part of the show's SCRIPT. The only major difference between these shows and other shows are the fact that the actors are not professional actors. They are contestants which may be models (male/female) or want-to-be actors/actresses, etc.

And like you say 90% drama is "done-on-purpose" because it's part of the shows SCRIPT... Yes it results in more popularity and sometimes more airtime... But that's not because it is Random, it's carefully planned for when the writers for the episode get together and decide what to write. Granted it's not as INVOLVING as writing a sit-com or other fiction television series of something like an X-File episode (for example)...

Less $$$, less writers, simpler scripts... and more basic stories/drama.

And BTW I'm not saying it is BAD... I personally enjoy watching Survivor and Big Brother... Sometimes you WONDER why the story goes in a SPECIFIC direction... And you're like: "Huh, if they did this it would totally blow open the game..." And they never do. That's because they are sticking to the "script"...

Again not BAD... I still find it entertaining.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
It's NOT Apples-To-Apples

Jay103 wrote:
...This isn't Uno, it's Apples to Apples. Uno is a totally different type of game...

I know it's not UNO. But I still think 100 cards is a LOT for a "combination"-type game. So if a game like "Gin Rummy" can pull enough possibilities for play using 52 only cards some for sequences others for multiples...

I think it's safe to assume that 33 cards per type x 3 types = 99 cards should be enough to play the game. And that could of course include multiples of some cards too...

It's no Apples-To-Apples...! Apples-To-Apples is a "comparison" game. In this Foody game, you create PERMUTATIONS. The number of combinations is many times GREATER than the card count. Whereas in Apples-To-Apples, the cards you can play are all individual cards REQUIRING more cards to play the game.

PERMUTATIONS means you can have "more" sequences that are possible than a card game like Apples-To-Apples.

The typical card game that comes to mind is "Gin Rummy". It's done with only 52 cards. Doing it with 99 cards probably allows you to DOUBLE the amount of players and have perhaps allowing a 2 to 4 player game.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
questccg wrote:Tim Edwards

questccg wrote:
Tim Edwards wrote:
As a Master Chef addict, I really like this idea...

You do realize that all Reality Television is "scripted", right??? In other words it's FAKE television just like sit-coms and the like... Master Chef is no different. Have you seen the kids version of the show??? Do you mean to tell me all those kids cook better than the majority of "housewives" around the world???

Think about it... It's FAKE, scripted. A form of entertainment where some of the important parts of "storytelling" are used to form an episode...

I'm much more interested in discussing the potential of this game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Off-Topic

Tim Edwards wrote:
...I'm much more interested in discussing the potential of this game.

Sorry it was an aside... Back to the OP!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Clearly more variability than Apples-To-Apples

questccg wrote:
...I think it's safe to assume that 33 cards per type x 3 types = 99 cards should be enough to play the game. And that could of course include multiples of some cards too...

I'm tired and can't think about the MATH right now... BUT if someone has a good focus and can figure out the amount of PERMUTATIONS of three (3) categories with 33 cards in each category is...

You'll see that the "combining" factor naturally tends to OVERSIZE the game and lead to more replayability (straight out of the box).

(If someone with the math skills could quote the result of 33 cards choose 3 per 3 categories = how many permutations)... So it's 33:33:33 (total 99 cards). In each case choose "3:3:3" and then choose "1:1:1". But it's a permutation and the order is IMPORTANT (because of the 3 types of cards).

And the card count is "9 cards" per player and therefore that's 36 cards in total for all 4 players. My guess "3 cards" per category too... So 12 out of 33 for one round. Leaves 21 cards per card type (based on a 4 Player game). Or 63 cards in total. (63 + 36 = 99) Just to make sure I didn't mess-up any of the math...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How you can "spice" it up a little...

Some of my IDEAS... considering I re-read that you have 3 courses for the competition: appetizer, entree and desert.

ON EACH DISH CARD, divide it into THREE (3) Sections with:

A> Top: Total # of points for Appetizer (funny, real or interesting)
B> Middle: Total # of points for Entree (again the same)
C> Bottom: Total # of points for Dessert (the same)

You get "3" DISH cards for the ROUND which is comprised of three "courses".

ON EACH Ingredient/Adjective CARD, offer UP TWO (2) possible points: one positive ("+") and one negative ("-"). You get SIX (6), three of each and you need to figure out how you are going to use THOSE cards during ALL 3 rounds...

You won't NEED "art"... You do this for "Adjectives", "Ingredients" and "Dishes". Like others have suggested, maybe all you need is ICONS.

If you make it that you can KEEP cards in your hand or discard them at the end of the round, the idea is that you cannot have more than nine (9) cards in your hand. That's a LOT.

This ADDS A LOT to STRATEGY! Why? Because some cards are worth MORE points used in another "course" of the meal... The player CLOSEST to his DISH'S SCORE is the winner.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
What I like about this idea is

The capacity for EXPANSIONS is HUGE!!! One expansion could be an "Italian" theme, another a "Sports" theme (I know I mentioned those two...) I'm positive you could think of other categories and make a bunch of wacky combinations...

Really see the potential in this GAME!

Update: 40 Dishes (with 3 each: appetizer, entree and dessert each with their own "Total Points"), 60 Preparation cards (with 2 Points: +x points and -x points).

Streamline the game and make it ONLY two (2) decks... Of the 60 Preparation cards some have 2 Adjectives, others have 2 Ingredients and lastly some have 1 of each.

But because the "dish" cards each have three (3) meals and the "preparation" cards each have two (2) point values... That massively opens up the permutations and diminishes the required amount of cards for the "core" game.

So you deal out three (3) "dish" cards and six (6) "preparation" cards. That means that potentially the game can PLAY up to TEN (10) players... 30 "dish" cards and 60 "preparation" cards.

Like an Appetizer: "Spicy" (4 points) + "Jalapeno" (-1 points) = "Garden Salad" (5 points) which results in the "Spicy Jalapeno Garden Salad (3/5 points)...

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
It's just 33x33x33. However,

It's just 33x33x33.

However, permutations aren't all that interesting.. (as I noted in my big comment at the top). The game needs something that focuses the choices and gives the judges a criterion to judge by.

mwlgames
mwlgames's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2017
To add anonymity

Had a thought on adding in anonymity, have each player place their 3 cards into an envelope/sleeve like in Clue, this way the "dishes" can be shuffled.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Something like this:

Jay103 wrote:
It's just 33x33x33.

I can't even begin to compute the possibilities... It's too difficult of a problem. If every "dish" card has 3 "courses" and each "preparation" card has 2 "values"... And there are 40 "dish" cards and 60 "preparation" cards... And you choose 3 "dish" cards followed by 6 "preparation" cards.

How many outcomes are possible... I don't know!

Jay103 wrote:
The game needs something that focuses the choices and gives the judges a criterion to judge by.

Like I said, forget the "Judge" and replace with a "simple" but "elegant" scoring mechanic:

A> Each "dish" is worth "x" points (which varies per "course").

B> You have six (6) preparation cards to manage 3 "courses".

C> Each preparation card has a "+" value and a "-" value.

D> Player closest to their "dish points" is the winner in each of the three (3) "course" rounds.

Play again for repeatability ... Is it like best 2 out of 3... or something like that... Or play to 20 Victory Points! (Based on the three "courses" you have to select and how close you score...) Could be cumulative, each player keeps score of their total... First to 20 VPs wins... Could be more VPs like 30 ... playtesting will help balance this part of the game!

If it's a Party Game, it allows for up to TEN (10) players to play the game concurrently. Sound like enough for a Party Game! No?!

It's simultaneous play, each player chooses their "dish" (1: for Appetizer, 2: for Entree and 3: for Dessert) Face-down and play for each 3 piles as many or as little "preparation" cards necessary.

Then you reveal one (1) Player at a time and compute the scores and proximity to each "dish" Total Points to determine the amount of VPs awarded. A winner's bonus can also be awarded for winning the best of the three (3) "courses". After that round is over and everyone is scored... Play over until the VP total is reached...

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
The advantage of having

The advantage of having judges is that creating the combinations becomes a matter of creativity (and risk). "Who would have though of putting these elements together? But somehow the crispiness of the fried seaweed really goes with the creaminess of the turnip purée." - says the typical Master Chef judge (scripted or spontaneously...)

Yes, it's totally subjective but in the end isn't it a party game where people get to play at being zany chefs and pretentious culinary judges?

That has more potential to be a laugh and a catalyst for conversation than a fixed scoring system.

The target audience for this game, it seems to me, is cookery competition fans with a sense of fun and imagination. There's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water if we try to make it something else.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Tim Edwards wrote:The

Tim Edwards wrote:
The advantage of having judges is that creating the combinations becomes a matter of creativity (and risk). "Who would have though of putting these elements together? But somehow the crispiness of the fried seaweed really goes with the creaminess of the turnip purée." - says the typical Master Chef judge (scripted or spontaneously...)

Yes, it's totally subjective but in the end isn't it a party game where people get to play at being zany chefs and pretentious culinary judges?

That has more potential to be a laugh and a catalyst for conversation than a fixed scoring system.

The target audience for this game, it seems to me, is cookery competition fans with a sense of fun and imagination. There's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water if we try to make it something else.


It still needs something for a judge to judge by. Even if the judge wants to reward quirkiness or whatever. Master Chef/Chopped judges are eating the food. Judges here can't literally taste the thing, so there has to be something else.

A *totally* subjective game is just going to be a mess. And a totally subjective game that's not anonymous makes no sense at all to me.

Also, you don't want to publish a game that can be replaced by a pad of paper and a pencil, and just having people write down the name of a quirky dish. Why would I BUY this game?

Fertessa
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2018
Rather than Master Chef, what

Rather than Master Chef, what if you used Chopped as inspiration? (To be honest they have alot in common, but I think the format is more consistent with Chopped)

Anyway, I was thinking what if the judge got to pick a mystery ingredient card or the theme, and for that round the players had to create a dish that best fit the judge's criteria? In Chopped and MasterChef they both have a giant pantry where contestants get their ingredients and tools from, but if someone takes all of an ingredient or is using a machine, then other players are out of luck. Maybe factor that in?

Could there be cards players draw from, which lay visible to all the players? And at the end of each round the players put them back? Maybe these cards are even passed out through card drafting at the beginning of the round?

Maybe also each round could be timed? Or there could be some surprise cards players could draw which would be like ' WHOOPS! YOU BURNED SOMETHING! (- 10 seconds) or YOU CUT YOUR FINGER YOU NITWIT (you have to throw away an ingredient because you got blood on it). Stuff like that.

I think the more it simulates an actual cooking show, while keeping it light, the more players could get into it.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
The appropriateness of the

The appropriateness of the collocations is how I think the designer has suggested things be judged - with "Crumbly lettuce", for example, scoring less well than "crumbly cheese". I think the criteria is clear enough, whilst not precluding the subjectivity that would (should?) be characteristic of the game. Having cards which unambiguously belong and don't belong together would avoid feuding friends getting hot under the collar, but it would also remove quite a lot of nuance. The 'right' choice probably depends on the target audience. I'm seeing a sort of after-dinner charades type context.

I completely agree with your final point. And to me, this looks like a concept that lends itself particularly well to a pen and paper game.

That's not to say it can't be commercial. Pictionary does well and I'd also put that in the category of a game-with-cards that would be better off as a pen-paper party game. Chameleon is another. The concept is good. The physical contents of the box are not very important. I play Chameleon (or a game with that essence) with my students, based on what I read from the blurb on the box.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
Fertessa wrote:Rather than

Fertessa wrote:
Rather than Master Chef, what if you used Chopped as inspiration? (To be honest they have alot in common, but I think the format is more consistent with Chopped)

Anyway, I was thinking what if the judge got to pick a mystery ingredient card or the theme, and for that round the players had to create a dish that best fit the judge's criteria? In Chopped and MasterChef they both have a giant pantry where contestants get their ingredients and tools from, but if someone takes all of an ingredient or is using a machine, then other players are out of luck. Maybe factor that in?

Could there be cards players draw from, which lay visible to all the players? And at the end of each round the players put them back? Maybe these cards are even passed out through card drafting at the beginning of the round?

Maybe also each round could be timed? Or there could be some surprise cards players could draw which would be like ' WHOOPS! YOU BURNED SOMETHING! (- 10 seconds) or YOU CUT YOUR FINGER YOU NITWIT (you have to throw away an ingredient because you got blood on it). Stuff like that.

I think the more it simulates an actual cooking show, while keeping it light, the more players could get into it.

Just seeing the word "timed" in your post got me thinking...cooking times...logistics of complex dishes...not having enough time to complete an element of the dish...overcooking things? might be something to work with.

"Did the sole but burnt the hollondaise. Didn't have enough time to remake it so rustled up a quick butter sauce instead." That kind of kitchen journey.

If we're moving away from a game of matching foods and adjectives, that's probably a good thing in terms of making a commercial game.

Noblesm19
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2018
Feedback

Thanks everyone for the feedback; and the disagreements on what a reality show is? :)

I'll try to address each question directly -- there might also be follow up questions so I'll @ the correct folks.

What happens if a judge is biased @questccg?
Well, what happens when a judge is biased in apples to apples or CAH? I assume play just continues and you don't like to play with that person. It would be hard to bake in a lot of rules for a party game, that's my thinking.

I'll keep the scoring system in mind, thank you!

@Jay103-

You're right the art would be hard, but that's part of the challenge for us. As it stands right now, that's our biggest bottleneck with moving forward -- I'll continue to look for more solutions on this, but the feedback provided thus far has been great.

@Jay103- A2A matching

You're also on to something here. Maybe if the judge pulled a 'theme' card out for each round and the player has to try and get close to that theme. However, having theme cards I feel we'd have to allow redrawing of cards to try and match the theme better. Could be good, but I also think the less rules the better.

@Jay103 - Redrawing

Yes, after the three courses end, the players will draw 9 new cards. As a quick note, the players will have to use all their cards during each turn.

@Jay103 - Rounds and Playing to the judge

18 rounds can be a lot, but it does go faster as the game continues. Plus, if there are 6 people, they'll all want to be the judge before the game ends. The more people play the game, the better? Also, what I mean by 'play the dishes to your judge' was that since it's not anonymous, since the players are actually describing their dishes, they'll tailor their 3 cards to something they feel they would appreciate. For instance, I know if I play with my mom, she would want something more serious. But, if I play with my kid, the goofier the better.

Judge games are tricky, you're right. I feel like I can add another element to it to increase the effectiveness of it.

@Questccg - Expansions

We have a few ideas for expansions on our roadmap already! I'll include them here if we ever get the base game to a completed state.

@Questccg - Spicing it up

I really like this idea and I want to put it on some of the cards to try it out. However, I feel like this can be a supplemental play style to the game, like there is the fun mode where you just make dishes and the winner gets a token, and the competitive mode where you're trying to get the dish score. What do you think?

I also agree with your art comment. What we planned on doing was having the card-back art as a static color (3 colors, 1 for each card stack) with the game name in the middle. Then on the Adjective cards just have the word being used and maybe a small definition of the word for the harder ones. The ingredients would also be an icon+ the word and some flavor text for the harder to understand ingredients -- maybe something about what this ingredient is typically used for. Then on the dish cards we'd have an icon+text+flavor text describing the history of the dish.

@Questccg - New take

"Like an Appetizer: "Spicy" (4 points) + "Jalapeno" (-1 points) = "Garden Salad" (5 points) which results in the "Spicy Jalapeno Garden Salad (3/5 points)..."

This makes more sense when explained this way! I still feel it should be a second mode though, which ultimately wouldn't allow for just 2 decks?

@Fertessa -

I like the variant and that will be considered!

@Tim Edwards -

This has me thinking of making an 'overcooked' boardgame, which would be a lot of fun!

Remaining Questions-

Again, thank you for all the feedback, but I am left with a few outstanding questions.

1. The card count came up a few times but I don't see/understand why having 363 could be a bad idea (other than production cost, which I don't even know how much it would be).

2. If I were to include feedback or go forward with what I have, what would be the next steps after art on the card?

I also fully plan on providing a copy to everyone here if this ever becomes a thing, so thank you!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut